video card recommendation?

I haven't simmed in a couple of years now and want to get back into it. I'm interested in many of the newer sims but also GPL. Last time I used GPL I had a Hercules Thriller w/ 8MB ram. Are both the ATI Radeons and GeForces compatible with both GPL and new games? Thanks.

"Holtzman" > > Are both the ATI Radeons and GeForces compatible with both GPL and new > games? > > Thanks. > The Radeon 8500 or the Geforce 3 & 4's will work very well with GPL(using the d3d patch) and most newer titles. The thing to shop for these days is onboard memory. You must get a card with at least 32 megs...but even that is too small I think. Unless cash is a major problem, a 64 meg vid card should be the starting point. Both ATI and Nvidia have 128meg cards. Titles like N2002 use texture compression, and even they recomend 64 megs if you use the opengl display. Be prepared for some major hair-pulling tho, especially if you are migrating from a 3dfx card. Track down and eliminate EVERY 3dfx file before you begin installing the new card. dave henrie

Here are some directions for doing this, just use 3dfx, voodoo and glide etc. in place of nv in step 2. Cya Joe Janasov "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:XZCr8.179307$Yv2.60143@rwcrnsc54...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > "Holtzman" > > > > Are both the ATI Radeons and GeForces compatible with both GPL and new > > games? > > > > Thanks. > > > The Radeon 8500 or the Geforce 3 & 4's will work very well with

GPL(using > the d3d patch) and most newer titles. The thing to shop for these days is > onboard memory. You must get a card with at least 32 megs...but even that > is too small I think. Unless cash is a major problem, a 64 meg vid card > should be the starting point. Both ATI and Nvidia have 128meg cards. > Titles like N2002 use texture compression, and even they recomend 64megs > if you use the opengl display. > Be prepared for some major hair-pulling tho, especially if you are > migrating from a 3dfx card. Track down and eliminate EVERY 3dfx filebefore > you begin installing the new card. > dave henrie > >

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:XZCr8.179307$Yv2.60143@rwcrnsc54...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > "Holtzman" > > > > Are both the ATI Radeons and GeForces compatible with both GPL and new > > games? > > > > Thanks. > > > The Radeon 8500 or the Geforce 3 & 4's will work very well with

GPL(using > the d3d patch) and most newer titles. The thing to shop for these days is > onboard memory. You must get a card with at least 32 megs...but even that > is too small I think. Unless cash is a major problem, a 64 meg vid card > should be the starting point. Both ATI and Nvidia have 128meg cards. > Titles like N2002 use texture compression, and even they recomend 64megs > if you use the opengl display. > Be prepared for some major hair-pulling tho, especially if you are > migrating from a 3dfx card. Track down and eliminate EVERY 3dfx filebefore > you begin installing the new card. > dave henrie >Thanks for the reply. I definitely am planning on something in the 64meg range. As I said, I haven't done _any_ sim-ming (I _never_ do gaming :-)) for quite a while so I'm actually upgrading from an ATI Xpert98 (8meg) card. No 3dfx for me. One last thing: I am on a tight budget (under $100.00 because I need a new wheel too) and I'm thinking about a Radeon 7500 because of the dual monitor support (I gotta work on this machine too). I've seen other manufacturers such as Sapphire, Apollo, etc using the ATI chip. Are these 3rd party manufacturers OK? Should I go for the ones with DDR over not-DDR? I am looking at [ATI RADEON 7500 128MB SDRAM W/TV/DVI OUT] for $89.00 or [ATI RADEON 7500 64MB DDR TV/DVI/DUAL VGA] for $79.00. I haven't seen Geforce 3 or 4s for $100.00. but I'm still looking. Thanks again...

May have to put another 25.00 with the 100.00 to get the Geforce3 Ti200 card, but it is well worth the extra 25.00 you would be spending. "Holtzman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2qFr8.10408$%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:XZCr8.179307$Yv2.60143@rwcrnsc54... > > > > "Holtzman" > > > > > > Are both the ATI Radeons and GeForces compatible with both GPL and new > > > games? > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > The Radeon 8500 or the Geforce 3 & 4's will work very well with > GPL(using > > the d3d patch) and most newer titles. The thing to shop for these days

is > > onboard memory. You must get a card with at least 32 megs...but eventhat

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > is too small I think. Unless cash is a major problem, a 64 meg vid card > > should be the starting point. Both ATI and Nvidia have 128meg cards. > > Titles like N2002 use texture compression, and even they recomend 64 > megs > > if you use the opengl display. > > Be prepared for some major hair-pulling tho, especially if you are > > migrating from a 3dfx card. Track down and eliminate EVERY 3dfx file > before > > you begin installing the new card. > > dave henrie > > > Thanks for the reply. I definitely am planning on something in the 64meg > range. As I said, I haven't done _any_ sim-ming (I _never_ do gaming :-)) > for quite a while so I'm actually upgrading from an ATI Xpert98 (8meg)

card. > No 3dfx for me. > > One last thing: I am on a tight budget (under $100.00 because I need anew > wheel too) and I'm thinking about a Radeon 7500 because of the dualmonitor

Quoted text (15 lines)

> support (I gotta work on this machine too). > > I've seen other manufacturers such as Sapphire, Apollo, etc using the ATI > chip. > Are these 3rd party manufacturers OK? > > Should I go for the ones with DDR over not-DDR? > > I am looking at [ATI RADEON 7500 128MB SDRAM W/TV/DVI OUT] for $89.00 or > [ATI RADEON 7500 64MB DDR TV/DVI/DUAL VGA] for $79.00. I haven't seen > Geforce 3 or 4s for $100.00. but I'm still looking. > > Thanks again... > >

Keep looking. I bought a VisionTek Xtasy 6564 GeForce3 Ti 200 (64MB DDR) for $100 (Best Buy day after Thanksgiving sale). If you can find one, it will blow the doors off of the Radeon 7500. This card overclocks very well. Bill "Holtzman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<2qFr8.10408$%[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (45 lines)

> "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:XZCr8.179307$Yv2.60143@rwcrnsc54... > > > > "Holtzman" > > > > > > Are both the ATI Radeons and GeForces compatible with both GPL and new > > > games? > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > The Radeon 8500 or the Geforce 3 & 4's will work very well with > GPL(using > > the d3d patch) and most newer titles. The thing to shop for these days is > > onboard memory. You must get a card with at least 32 megs...but even that > > is too small I think. Unless cash is a major problem, a 64 meg vid card > > should be the starting point. Both ATI and Nvidia have 128meg cards. > > Titles like N2002 use texture compression, and even they recomend 64 > megs > > if you use the opengl display. > > Be prepared for some major hair-pulling tho, especially if you are > > migrating from a 3dfx card. Track down and eliminate EVERY 3dfx file > before > > you begin installing the new card. > > dave henrie > > > Thanks for the reply. I definitely am planning on something in the 64meg > range. As I said, I haven't done _any_ sim-ming (I _never_ do gaming :-)) > for quite a while so I'm actually upgrading from an ATI Xpert98 (8meg) card. > No 3dfx for me. > > One last thing: I am on a tight budget (under $100.00 because I need a new > wheel too) and I'm thinking about a Radeon 7500 because of the dual monitor > support (I gotta work on this machine too). > > I've seen other manufacturers such as Sapphire, Apollo, etc using the ATI > chip. > Are these 3rd party manufacturers OK? > > Should I go for the ones with DDR over not-DDR? > > I am looking at [ATI RADEON 7500 128MB SDRAM W/TV/DVI OUT] for $89.00 or > [ATI RADEON 7500 64MB DDR TV/DVI/DUAL VGA] for $79.00. I haven't seen > Geforce 3 or 4s for $100.00. but I'm still looking. > > Thanks again...

Quoted text (21 lines)

>Thanks for the reply. I definitely am planning on something in the 64meg >range. As I said, I haven't done _any_ sim-ming (I _never_ do gaming :-)) >for quite a while so I'm actually upgrading from an ATI Xpert98 (8meg) card. >No 3dfx for me. > >One last thing: I am on a tight budget (under $100.00 because I need a new >wheel too) and I'm thinking about a Radeon 7500 because of the dual monitor >support (I gotta work on this machine too). > >I've seen other manufacturers such as Sapphire, Apollo, etc using the ATI >chip. >Are these 3rd party manufacturers OK? > >Should I go for the ones with DDR over not-DDR? > >I am looking at [ATI RADEON 7500 128MB SDRAM W/TV/DVI OUT] for $89.00 or >[ATI RADEON 7500 64MB DDR TV/DVI/DUAL VGA] for $79.00. I haven't seen >Geforce 3 or 4s for $100.00. but I'm still looking. > >Thanks again... >

The difference between an SDR and a DDR card is chalk and cheese. The DDR will blow the doors off an SDR card. Don't consider going to a 128MB card, this is nothing more than marketing hype. You will NEVER use more than 64MB of textures with any current sim, especially at a usable speed on a Radeon 7500. So make sure you don't get suckered in by a salesman. The extram mem doesn't buy any extra speed!!! Radeon 7500 is equivalent to a GF2 ti, the Radeon 8500 is equiv to something between a GF3ti 200 and ti 500. IF money is tight, go for the 7500 DDR. Or the GF2 ti 200. If you want more power, go for the ti500 or Radeon 8500. Don't know about these 3rd party makers, I'd be a little suspicious personally. But the main question is what CPU/mobo this is to go with. If you are upgrading your PC from the old 8mb card, you won't have the CPU power for these high end cards. If you've got anything 500mhz or slower, stick to the Radeon 7500 and save you're cash, cos you're bottleneck will be CPU power. Rafe Mc

Rafe, I just want to point out that currently NR2002 can use more than 64MB of video memory using the OpenGL renderer. In fact its in the ballpark of 80MB currently since there is no texture compression using the OpenGL renderer. That is the only game I currently have 1st hand knowlwdge of, but there might be more in the near future. If people can afford it, I would recommend seriously considering 128MB video cards... -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash Rafe McAuliffe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > >Thanks for the reply. I definitely am planning on something in the 64meg > >range. As I said, I haven't done _any_ sim-ming (I _never_ do gaming :-)) > >for quite a while so I'm actually upgrading from an ATI Xpert98 (8meg) card. > >No 3dfx for me. > > > >One last thing: I am on a tight budget (under $100.00 because I need a new > >wheel too) and I'm thinking about a Radeon 7500 because of the dual monitor > >support (I gotta work on this machine too). > > > >I've seen other manufacturers such as Sapphire, Apollo, etc using the ATI > >chip. > >Are these 3rd party manufacturers OK? > > > >Should I go for the ones with DDR over not-DDR? > > > >I am looking at [ATI RADEON 7500 128MB SDRAM W/TV/DVI OUT] for $89.00 or > >[ATI RADEON 7500 64MB DDR TV/DVI/DUAL VGA] for $79.00. I haven't seen > >Geforce 3 or 4s for $100.00. but I'm still looking. > > > >Thanks again... > > > > The difference between an SDR and a DDR card is chalk and cheese. The > DDR will blow the doors off an SDR card. Don't consider going to a > 128MB card, this is nothing more than marketing hype. You will NEVER > use more than 64MB of textures with any current sim, especially at a > usable speed on a Radeon 7500. So make sure you don't get suckered in > by a salesman. The extram mem doesn't buy any extra speed!!! > > Radeon 7500 is equivalent to a GF2 ti, the Radeon 8500 is equiv to > something between a GF3ti 200 and ti 500. IF money is tight, go for > the 7500 DDR. Or the GF2 ti 200. > > If you want more power, go for the ti500 or Radeon 8500. > > Don't know about these 3rd party makers, I'd be a little suspicious > personally. > > But the main question is what CPU/mobo this is to go with. If you are > upgrading your PC from the old 8mb card, you won't have the CPU power > for these high end cards. If you've got anything 500mhz or slower, > stick to the Radeon 7500 and save you're cash, cos you're bottleneck > will be CPU power. > > Rafe Mc >

"Rafe McAuliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > >Thanks for the reply. I definitely am planning on something in the 64meg > >range. As I said, I haven't done _any_ sim-ming (I _never_ do gaming:-)) > >for quite a while so I'm actually upgrading from an ATI Xpert98 (8meg)card. > >No 3dfx for me. > > > >One last thing: I am on a tight budget (under $100.00 because I need anew > >wheel too) and I'm thinking about a Radeon 7500 because of the dualmonitor

Quoted text (39 lines)

> >support (I gotta work on this machine too). > > > >I've seen other manufacturers such as Sapphire, Apollo, etc using the ATI > >chip. > >Are these 3rd party manufacturers OK? > > > >Should I go for the ones with DDR over not-DDR? > > > >I am looking at [ATI RADEON 7500 128MB SDRAM W/TV/DVI OUT] for $89.00 or > >[ATI RADEON 7500 64MB DDR TV/DVI/DUAL VGA] for $79.00. I haven't seen > >Geforce 3 or 4s for $100.00. but I'm still looking. > > > >Thanks again... > > > > The difference between an SDR and a DDR card is chalk and cheese. The > DDR will blow the doors off an SDR card. Don't consider going to a > 128MB card, this is nothing more than marketing hype. You will NEVER > use more than 64MB of textures with any current sim, especially at a > usable speed on a Radeon 7500. So make sure you don't get suckered in > by a salesman. The extram mem doesn't buy any extra speed!!! > > Radeon 7500 is equivalent to a GF2 ti, the Radeon 8500 is equiv to > something between a GF3ti 200 and ti 500. IF money is tight, go for > the 7500 DDR. Or the GF2 ti 200. > > If you want more power, go for the ti500 or Radeon 8500. > > Don't know about these 3rd party makers, I'd be a little suspicious > personally. > > But the main question is what CPU/mobo this is to go with. If you are > upgrading your PC from the old 8mb card, you won't have the CPU power > for these high end cards. If you've got anything 500mhz or slower, > stick to the Radeon 7500 and save you're cash, cos you're bottleneck > will be CPU power. > > Rafe Mc >

Rafe, you might want to check this out... I am not sure which card you were referring to when you said there is no advantage to going with the 128Mb. version but there is a test of 3 different ATI Radeons (they throw in some GeForce3 Ti200 scores as a comparison) at this link http://www.digit-life.com/articles/anyr2002/index4.html that show that while the GeForce3 Ti200s don't seem to benefit from the extra ram on a 128Mb. version the ATI Radeon 8500LEs get a 15 percent boost with the extra ram. I just quickly scanned the article so I didn't really analyze the testing methodology but seems there may be some merit to more ram on certain architectures. Regards, Robin

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Rafe, you might want to check this out... I am not sure which card you were >referring to when you said there is no advantage to going with the 128Mb. >version but there is a test of 3 different ATI Radeons (they throw in some >GeForce3 Ti200 scores as a comparison) at this link >http://www.digit-life.com/articles/anyr2002/index4.html that show that while >the GeForce3 Ti200s don't seem to benefit from the extra ram on a 128Mb. >version the ATI Radeon 8500LEs get a 15 percent boost with the extra ram. I >just quickly scanned the article so I didn't really analyze the testing >methodology but seems there may be some merit to more ram on certain >architectures. >Regards, >Robin >

Robin, that's an interesting article. I can see some circumstances with their test where the 128mb RAM made a noticeable difference, more so with the GF4s. I question whether the 128mb card's better performance is due to the extra RAM though. The tests on Serious Sam and RTCW showed it with a clear lead over the 64mb cards at 800x600. There's pretty much no way they could have 64mb of textures in 800x600, so it seems like they have optimised the design of the card to pull some extra performance. The other two were straight reference designs, and they both had the same scores. It does seem like a very well put together card anyway, regardless. Of course, all the tests were on a P4 2.2ghz, so you would want some serious cpu power to get that performance. Rafe Mc

On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:30:30 GMT, "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Rafe, I just want to point out that currently NR2002 can use more than 64MB of video memory using >the OpenGL renderer. In fact its in the ballpark of 80MB currently since there is no texture >compression using the OpenGL renderer. That is the only game I currently have 1st hand knowlwdge >of, but there might be more in the near future. If people can afford it, I would recommend >seriously considering 128MB video cards... I agree, if you can afford to get the best then you should, but I hate the fact that sales ppl use the mem of a card to sell it. Like a GF2 MX200 with 64mb of ram will be sold to a computer newbie as a better deal than a 32mb GF2 ti or similar. With DDR. The 32mb DDR card would kill any 64mb SDR card, but the sales/marketing ppl will talk up the SDR version. It seems that Holtzman is on a tight budget, so a 128mb SDR card would be major overkill against a 64mb DDR card. Rafe Mc

"Rafe McAuliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > >Rafe, you might want to check this out... I am not sure which card youwere > >referring to when you said there is no advantage to going with the 128Mb. > >version but there is a test of 3 different ATI Radeons (they throw insome > >GeForce3 Ti200 scores as a comparison) at this link > >http://www.digit-life.com/articles/anyr2002/index4.html that show thatwhile > >the GeForce3 Ti200s don't seem to benefit from the extra ram on a 128Mb. > >version the ATI Radeon 8500LEs get a 15 percent boost with the extra ram.I

Quoted text (23 lines)

> >just quickly scanned the article so I didn't really analyze the testing > >methodology but seems there may be some merit to more ram on certain > >architectures. > >Regards, > >Robin > > > Robin, that's an interesting article. I can see some circumstances > with their test where the 128mb RAM made a noticeable difference, more > so with the GF4s. I question whether the 128mb card's better > performance is due to the extra RAM though. The tests on Serious Sam > and RTCW showed it with a clear lead over the 64mb cards at 800x600. > There's pretty much no way they could have 64mb of textures in > 800x600, so it seems like they have optimised the design of the card > to pull some extra performance. The other two were straight reference > designs, and they both had the same scores. > > It does seem like a very well put together card anyway, regardless. Of > course, all the tests were on a P4 2.2ghz, so you would want some > serious cpu power to get that performance. > > Rafe Mc > >

Yeah, I think when I scanned it quickly I noticed somewhere they said that they suspected there may be some driver optimization on ATI's part but I haven't yet had a chance to really read through the article. I just wish I could find some hardware testing sites that use more than just Q3, SS, and RTCW... I'd love to read a comprehensive test of the ATI cards by someone who knows racing sims and what is expected graphics wise. FPS doesn't always equal great... but it helps. Unless I read some conclusive evidence that the ATI's are stable and fast and great looking ( can you tell I still love the FSAA of my V5?) I think I may be plunking down some cash on the GeForce4 4200 when it ships sometime soon. Regards, Robin

Quoted text (12 lines)

>Yeah, I think when I scanned it quickly I noticed somewhere they said that >they suspected there may be some driver optimization on ATI's part but I >haven't yet had a chance to really read through the article. I just wish I >could find some hardware testing sites that use more than just Q3, SS, and >RTCW... I'd love to read a comprehensive test of the ATI cards by someone >who knows racing sims and what is expected graphics wise. FPS doesn't always >equal great... but it helps. Unless I read some conclusive evidence that the >ATI's are stable and fast and great looking ( can you tell I still love the >FSAA of my V5?) I think I may be plunking down some cash on the GeForce4 >4200 when it ships sometime soon. >Regards, >Robin

The problem between comparing GFs and Radeons is consistency of texture quality. There was a (very) long review of this on www.anandtech.com where they tried to determine which settings were needed for each card to have the same image quality. ATI's 2x and 4x FSAA were WAY better than the GFs, and were generally a LOT better in image quality. The GFs needed max anisotropic filtering and 4x FSAA to get to the quality of the ATI 2x trilinear image qual. So it's a bit misleading to see a comparison between the two based on 2x or 4x FSAA, because the GF doesn't have to work as hard. And the GF always appears to be the speed champ. Rafe Mc